As the significance of academic language in fostering success across content areas garners growing attention, the incorporation of literacy instruction within content area teaching has shown promise in bolstering the academic achievements of English learners. Nevertheless, a comprehensive assessment of empirical studies exploring the impact of literacy-integrated content area instruction on English learners’ literacy skills and content knowledge remains absent in the literature. The goal of the current meta-analysis is to quantitatively synthesize the studies that investigated the effects of literacy-integrated content area instruction on kindergarten to 12th grade English learners’ literacy skills (e.g., reading comprehension, vocabulary, writing) and content knowledge development. Across various academic subjects, 26 studies were identified, yielding 99 effect sizes. Random-effects models revealed that the magnitude of overall effects of literacy instruction in content learning was medium in writing but large in reading, vocabulary, and content knowledge, based on the benchmark of Kraft. No publication bias was found in any of the analyses. Moderator analyses indicated that longer instructional durations (e.g., one year or longer) and small group configurations prove more effective for English learners in reading and writing, but additional research is warranted to explore the effect of literacy-integrated content instruction on English learners’ writing. This study offers both theoretical and pedagogical implications.
*Aguirre-MuñozZ.PantoyaM.PandoM.Loria GarroE.S. (2021). Engineering integration in elementary science classrooms: Effects of disciplinary language scaffolds on English learners’ content learning and engineering identity. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(3), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20409
2.
AlvermannD.E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(2), 189–208.
3.
*AugustD.Branum-MartinL.Cárdenas-HaganE.FrancisD.J. (2009). The impact of an instructional intervention on the science and language learning of middle grade English language learners. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 345–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903217623
4.
*AugustD.Branum-MartinL.Cárdenas-HaganE.FrancisD.J.PowellJ.MooreS.HaynesE.F. (2014). Helping ELLs meet the Common Core State Standards for literacy in science: The impact of an instructional intervention focused on academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 54–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.836763
5.
BaileyA.L.MaherC.A.WilkinsonL.C. (Eds.). (2018). Language, literacy, and learning in the STEM disciplines: How language counts for English learners. Routledge.
6.
BalduzziS.RückerG.SchwarzerG. (2019). How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. BMJ Mental Health, 22(4), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117
7.
BorgonovoE.PlischkeE. (2016). Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(3), 869–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.032
8.
*BravoM.A.CervettiG.N. (2014). Attending to the language and literacy needs of English learners in science. Equity and Excellence in Education, 47(2), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.900418
9.
BriskM.E.ProctorC.P. (2012). Challenges and supports for English language learners in bilingual programs. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 115.
10.
BrooksK.ThurstonL.P. (2010). English language learner academic engagement and instructional grouping configurations. American Secondary Education, 39(1), 45–60.
11.
CabellS.Q.HwangH. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S99–S107. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338
12.
CalderónM.SlavinR.SánchezM. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of Children, 21(1), 103–127.
13.
CallahanR.M. (2005). Tracking and high school English learners: Limiting opportunity to learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328.
14.
CampbellA.E.DavisG.E.AdamsV.M. (2007). Cognitive demands and second-language learners: A framework for analyzing mathematics instructional contexts. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060709336603
15.
CarrK. (2015). Literacy-rich STEM project-based learning: Preparing STEM teaching candidates for high-needs schools. Teacher Education and Practice, 28(2–3), 239–255.
16.
*CervettiG.N.KulikowichJ.M.BravoM.A. (2015). The effects of educative curriculum materials on teachers’ use of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.10.005
17.
ChamotA.U.O’MalleyJ.M. (1996). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A model for linguistically diverse classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1086/461827
18.
Clark-GarecaB.ShortD.LukesM.Sharp-RossM. (2020). Long-term English learners: Current research, policy, and practice. TESOL Journal, 11(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.452
19.
de OliveiraL.C.ObenchainK.M.KenneyR.H.OliveiraA.W. (2019). Language-content integration across school subjects: Approaches to teaching English language learners. In L.C. de Oliveira, K.M., Obenchain, R.H. Kenney, & A.W. Oliveira (Eds.), Teaching the content areas to English language learners in secondary schools (pp. 1–18). Springer.
EhriL.C.DreyerL.G.FlugmanB.GrossA. (2007). Reading rescue: An effective tutoring intervention model for language-minority students who are struggling readers in first grade. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 414–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302175
EslamiZ.R.GarverR.KimH. (2021). English learners and project-based learning. In CapraroR.CapraroM.M.YoungJ.BarrosoL.R. (Eds.), STEM project-based learning: Integrated Engineering for a New Era (pp. 173–199). Texas A&M University; Aggie STEM.
25.
FieldA.P.GillettR. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733
26.
GoldenbergC. (2020). Reading wars, reading science, and English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S131–S144. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.340
27.
FragkosK.C.TsagrisM.FrangosC.C. (2014). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Confidence intervals for Rosenthal’s Fail-Safe number. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2014(1), 1–17. https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/825383
28.
GrahamS.LiuX.AitkenA.NgC.BartlettB.HarrisK.R.HolzapfelJ. (2018). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.194
29.
GrahamS.LiuX.BartlettB.NgC.HarrisK.R.AitkenA.BarkelA.KavanaughC.TalukdarJ. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317746927
30.
GreenC.McLachlanC. (2024). Vocabulary for academic literacy. In R. Elizabeth (Ed.), Research handbook on curriculum and education (pp. 244–260). Edward Elgar Publishing.
31.
HaagN.HepptB.StanatP.KuhlP.PantH.A. (2013). Second language learners’ performance in mathematics: Disentangling the effects of academic language features. Learning and Instruction, 28, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.001
32.
HallC.RobertsG.J.ChoE.McCulleyL.V.CarrollM.VaughnS. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 763–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9372-4
33.
HansenC.SteinmetzH.BlockJ. (2022). How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: A practical guide. Management Review Quarterly, 72, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00247-4
34.
*HindeE.R.PoppS.E.O.Jimenez-SilvaM.DornR.I. (2011). Linking geography to reading and English language learners’ achievement in US elementary and middle school classrooms. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 20(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2011.540102
35.
HoffmanL.ZollmanA. (2016). What STEM teachers need to know and do for English language learners (ELLs): Using literacy to learn. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 51(1), 9. https://doi.org10.30707/JSTE51.1Hoffman
36.
HuertaM.GarzaT. (2019). Writing in Science: Why, how, and for whom? A systematic literature review of 20 years of intervention research (1996–2016). Educational Psychology Review, 31(3), 533–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09477-1
37.
HwangH.CabellS.Q.JoynerR.E. (2021). Effects of integrated literacy and content-area instruction on vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary years: A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(3), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1954005
JacksonJ.K.HuertaM.GarzaT. (2020). A promising science and literacy instructional model with Hispanic fifth grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1728734
41.
KimJ.HermanJ.L. (2009). A three-state study of English learner progress. Educational Assessment, 14(3–4), 212–231.
LachanceJ.R.HonigsfeldA.HarrellG. (2019). Equal educational opportunity for English learners: ESL teachers’ conceptualizations on the importance of academic language. TESOL Journal, 10(2), e00415. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.415
44.
Lara-AlecioR.IrbyB.J.TongF.GuerreroC.KochJ.Sutton-JonesK.L. (2018). Assessing conceptual understanding via literacy-infused, inquiry-based science among middle school English learners and economically-challenged students. Education Sciences, 8(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010027
45.
Lara-AlecioR.TongF.IrbyB.J.GuerreroC.HuertaM.FanY. (2012). The effect of an instructional intervention on middle school English learners’ science and English reading achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(8), 987–1011. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21031
46.
Lara-AlecioR.TongF.IrbyB.J.MathesP. (2009). Teachers’ pedagogical differences during ESL block among bilingual and English-immersion kindergarten classrooms in a randomized trial study. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235880902965938
47.
LeeO. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075004491
48.
*LeeO.Maerten-RiveraJ.PenfieldR.D.LeRoyK.SecadaW.G. (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20209
49.
LesauxN.K.KiefferM.J.FallerS.E.KelleyJ.G. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.3
50.
*LesauxN.K.KiefferM.J.KelleyJ.G.HarrisJ.R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312145321
LindenA.H.HönekoppJ. (2021). Heterogeneity of research results: A new perspective from which to assess and promote progress in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964193
53.
Lopes-MurphyS. (2012). Universal design for learning: Preparing secondary education teachers in training to increase academic accessibility of high school English learners. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(6), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2012.693549
54.
MarulisL.M.NeumanS.B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335.
55.
MasraiA.MiltonJ. (2021). Vocabulary knowledge and academic achievement revisited: General and academic vocabulary as determinant factors. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 39(3), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2021.1942097
56.
MasterB.LoebS.WhitneyC.WyckoffJ. (2016). Different skills? Identifying differentially effective teachers of English language learners. The Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1086/688871
57.
*MatuchniakT.OlsonC.B.ScarcellaR. (2014). Examining the text-based, on-demand, analytical writing of mainstreamed Latino English learners in a randomized field trial of the Pathway Project intervention. Reading and Writing, 27, 973–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9490-z
58.
McCartheyS.J. (1997). Connecting home and school literacy practices in classrooms with diverse populations. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 145–182.
59.
*McElvainC.M. (2010). Transactional literature circles and the reading comprehension of English learners in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2), 178–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01403.x
60.
MoodyS.HuX.KuoL.J.JouharM.XuZ.LeeS. (2018). Vocabulary instruction: A critical analysis of theories, research, and practice. Education Sciences, 8(4), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040180
NagyW.TownsendD. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
63.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). English learners in public schools. Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf
*NeumanS.B.KaeferT. (2018). Developing low-income children’s vocabulary and content knowledge through a shared book reading program. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 52, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.12.001
66.
*NeumanS.B.SamudraP.DanielsonK. (2021). Effectiveness of scaling up a vocabulary intervention for low-income children, pre-K through first grade. The Elementary School Journal, 121(3), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1086/712492
67.
*OlsonC.B.KimJ.S.ScarcellaR.KramerJ.PearsonM.van DykD.A.CollinsP.LandR.E. (2012). Enhancing the interpretive reading and analytical writing of mainstreamed English learners in secondary school: Results from a randomized field trial using a cognitive strategies approach. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 323–355. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212439434
68.
*ParkY.WarschauerM. (2016). Syntactic enhancement and second language literacy: An experimental study. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 180–199.
69.
*Pollard-DurodolaS.D.GonzalezJ.E.SaenzL.ResendezN.KwokO.ZhuL.DavisH. (2018). The effects of content-enriched shared book reading versus vocabulary-only discussions on the vocabulary outcomes of preschool dual language learners. Early Education and Development, 29(2), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1393738
70.
*Pollard-DurodolaS.D.GonzalezJ.E.SaenzL.SoaresD.ResendezN.KwokO.DavisH.ZhuL. (2016). The effects of content-related shared book reading on the language development of preschool dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.004
71.
*ProctorC.P.DaltonB.UccelliP.BiancarosaG.MoE.SnowC.NeugebauerS. (2011). Improving comprehension online: Effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Reading and Writing, 24, 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9218-2
72.
*ProctorC.P.SilvermanR.D.HarringJ.R.JonesR.L.HartranftA.M. (2020). Teaching bilingual learners: Effects of a language-based reading intervention on academic language and reading comprehension in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.258
73.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
74.
ReedD.K.PetscherY.TruckenmillerA.J. (2017). The contribution of general reading ability to science achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(2), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.158
75.
*RelyeaJ.E.KimJ.S.RichP. (2022). Effectiveness of Tier 1 content-integrated literacy intervention on early elementary English learners’ reading comprehension and writing: Evidence from randomized controlled trial (EdWorking Paper, 22-606). Annenberg Institute at Brown University.
76.
Robinson-CimpianJ.P.ThompsonK.D.UmanskyI.M. (2016). Research and policy considerations for English learner equity. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215623553
77.
SalazarM.D.C.BrunoJ.K.SchneiderM.P. (2022). High quality, equity, and assessment: An analysis of variables impacting English learner standardized science test performance and implications for construct validity. Sustainability, 14(13), 7814. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137814
78.
SaundersW.M.FoormanB.R.CarlsonC.D. (2006). Is a separate block of time for oral English language development in programs for English learners needed?The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/510654
79.
SireciS.G.Faulkner-BondM. (2015). Promoting validity in the assessment of English learners. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 215–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14557003
80.
*SnowC.E.LawrenceJ.F.WhiteC. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167042
81.
*SpycherP. (2009). Learning academic language through science in two linguistically diverse kindergarten classes. The Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1086/593938
82.
StewartM.A.WalkerK.RevelleC. (2020). Learning from students: What, why, and how adolescent English learners want to read and write. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 6(1), 23–40.
TaboadaA.RutherfordV. (2011). Developing reading comprehension and academic vocabulary for English language learners through science content: A formative experiment. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 113–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711003604468
85.
Taboada BarberA.BuehlM.M.BeckJ.S.RamirezE.M.GallagherM.Richey NulandL.N.ArcherC.J. (2018). Literacy in social studies: The influence of cognitive and motivational practices on the reading comprehension of English learners and non-English learners. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 34(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1344942
86.
Taboada BarberA.BuehlM.M.KiddJ.K.SturtevantE.G.Richey NulandL.BeckJ. (2015). Reading engagement in social studies: Exploring the role of a social studies literacy intervention on reading comprehension, reading self-efficacy, and engagement in middle school students with different language backgrounds. Reading Psychology, 36(1), 31–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2013.815140
87.
*TongF.IrbyB.J.Lara-AlecioR.KochJ. (2014). Integrating literacy and science for English language learners: From learning-to-read to reading-to-learn. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(5), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2013.833072
88.
TongF.Lara-AlecioR.IrbyB.MathesP.KwokO.M. (2008). Accelerating early academic oral English development in transitional bilingual and structured English immersion programs. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 1011–1044. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208320790
89.
TruckenmillerA.J.ParkJ.DaboA.Wu NewtonY.C. (2019). Academic language instruction for students in grades 4 through 8: A literature synthesis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(1), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2018.1536773
90.
UccelliP.Phillips GallowayE.BarrC.D.MenesesA.DobbsC.L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/io.ioo2/rrq.i04
91.
*Van OrmanD.S.ArdashevaY.CarbonneauK.J.FirestoneJ.B. (2021). Examining the impacts of extended vocabulary instruction in mixed-English-proficiency science classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1881754
92.
*VaughnS.MartinezL.R.Linan-ThompsonS.ReutebuchC.K.CarlsonC.D.FrancisD. J. (2009). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(4), 297–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740903167018
93.
*VaughnS.MartinezL.R.WanzekJ.RobertsG.SwansonE.FallA.M. (2017). Improving content knowledge and comprehension for English language learners: Findings from a randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000069
94.
WeiL. (2021). Teaching academic vocabulary to English Language Learners (ELLs). Theory & Practice in Language Studies (TPLS), 11(12), 1507–1514. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1112.01
95.
*WijekumarK.MeyerB.J.LeiP.HernandezA.C.AugustD.L. (2018). Improving content area reading comprehension of Spanish speaking English learners in Grades 4 and 5 using web-based text structure instruction. Reading and Writing, 31, 1969–1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9802-9
96.
WolfM.K.LeonS. (2009). An investigation of the language demands in content assessments for English language learners. Educational Assessment, 14(3–4), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190903425883
97.
YoonK.S.DuncanT.LeeS.W.-Y.ScarlossB.ShapleyK. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
